“The old city centres have been flooded with people in recent years. … In London especially … the centre has been taken over entirely by masses of tourists. At the same time, however, the new masses are made up not only of foreign tourists – in London perhaps, but certainly not in Lille or Brussels. Day-trippers, suburbanites and local residents are also joining in a trend to stroll en masse around the old city centre. …

The scenery is fake and can become a scenery of consumption only through artifice. … Christine Boyer: ‘The contemporary visitor looking for public urban places is increasingly forced to stroll through recycled and revalued areas … urban tableaux that have been turned into gentrified, historicized, commercialized and privatized places.’ …

Boyer writes: ‘City after city is discovering that its abandoned industrial waterfront or out-of-fashion downtown contains a huge tourist potential and redesigns it as a leisure spectacle and promenade. …’ This process can be termed as mediterranization of the city … While coastal resorts of the late nineteenth century plopped the city on the seaside – Brighton could have been called London-on-the-Sea, Ostend Brussel-Bad and Le Touquet Paris-les-Bains – the reverse now takes place; the ersatz urban quality of the sea-side resort is re-exported to the city. … Humanity is adapting … to global warming. …

Mediterranization is not so much a sign of … a new public life, but rather an injection into the city of the archetype from the dream world of advertising: the universal beach party. … The neo-theatrical city is the city in the era of transcendental tourism, an age defined by tourism as one of the basic forms of our existence. … Tourism … is one of the vital economic functions of the old city …

The culture of the outdoor-café is the new sociability. … And the poor, the immigrants, the Fourth World? They will have to make way and bite the bullet, as always. … There is a very real possibility that this balancing act will fail. … One has to think in terms of a dual movement. Encapsulation versus mediterranization. …

An outdoor-café culture and the reconstruction of historical areas turn the city into a theme park … The city has always been a theatre … the theme park was invented in Athens or Rome … There is no culture without simulacra … Just as the critique aimed at the artifice of urban scenery is probably as old as philosophy, which posits being versus seeming, and critique (judgement) versus myth (story).”

“It is precisely the point at which the city dweller is relegated to the merely passive, assimilating role of the (anonymous) spectator and the consumer of a spectacle that is decisive. … It all comes down to keeping the dividing line – between spectacle and everyday life, between stage and auditorium, between audience and players, between the city dweller as actor and as spectator, between active and passive – blurred, open. For a more absolute division threatens the city.”

aus: Lieven De Cauter: The Neo-Theatrical City. On the Old Metropolis and the New Masses. In: ders.: The Capsular Civilisation. On the City in the Age of Fear. Rotterdam: NAi 2004, S. 30-36 (Erstveröffentlichung 1999).

10/16

“Those who call themselves realists – realism meaning a technocratic acceptance of the status quo, whether with good humour, sarcasm, cynicism or conviction and, therefore, a frequent collaboration with the status quo – are often as dangerous as prophets of doom or radical do-gooders who renounce the world as it is and thus, in reality, want to abolish it. For realists abolish the world while laughing.”

aus: Lieven De Cauter: The Rise of the Generic City. Rem Koolhaas’s Flight Forward. In: ders.: The Capsular Civilisation. On the City in the Age of Fear. Rotterdam: NAi 2004, S. 22 (Erstveröffentlichung 1998).

10/16

“The city … begins more and more to resemble to an airport. Like international airports, the new cities are the same everywhere. … The new city has no identity: it is a city without a past, without individuality or particularity – a generic city. … The airport is the paradigm because we are all in transit … The Generic City is a settlement for people who migrate, hence its instability. …

In a generic city, everyone is a tourist or a shopper. ‘The only activity is shopping.’ … The generic city is dominated by reverse gravity, by evaporation, by the centrifugal attraction of the void and the periphery, with centreless agglomerations as the final product. … The place where the new, evacuated urbaneness becomes visible is, according to Koolhaas’s description, the atrium. …

For the Romans it was a hole in a house or other building that injected light and air, the outdoors, into the interior. Now it is ‘a container of artificiality that allows the occupants to avoid daylight forever – a hermetic interior, sealed against the real’. … [Koolhaas] is more conscious than anyone that the atrium produces a surrogate urbaneness. … The analogy with an airport is striking: security is the key concept. The outside is once again dangerous. …

The nineteenth-century arcade into which Benjamin read the dream of a new public domain, one that would jettison the bourgeois distinction between the private and the public realms, has been transformed into the air-conditioned nightmare of hotel atria, of closed, artificial spaces and esplanades accessible only via car parks (as in La Défense or in L.A.) …

People seem to have given up on the street, on the world outside. …

In Koolhaas’s book, the absence of violence is striking. …  Perhaps Virilio can help us here. He was the first to point out the transformation of the city into an airport. But in his view violence is, on the contrary, ubiquitous. … The worst of all catastrophes may well be evaporation. … The atrium, the mall, the artificial plaza, the Internet and the television screen as virtual survival space.

The city, the public space, is being abandoned. For Virilio, the politics of space (territory, defence, urbanism) is being replaced by a politics of time (transport, communication, speed, networks. … Space no longer really matters, this is why the city is becoming everywhere the same. …

According to the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben … more and more people are falling outside the ordinance of social life … and into the ordinance of mere existence … . This mere existence is beyond the law, and hence without rights. It is governed by the logic of the camp … a territory outside the law … where anything can happen. … Transit zones are … duty free … They are potential camps (like the camps for illegal immigrants). …

Once we consider the airport in its totality – not only its lobbies and lounges, catering services, cargo companies and tour operators, but also the transit camps associated with it – we see the true face of the generic city.”

aus: Lieven De Cauter: The Rise of the Generic City. Rem Koolhaas’s Flight Forward. In: ders.: The Capsular Civilisation. On the City in the Age of Fear. Rotterdam: NAi 2004, S. 11-23 (Erstveröffentlichung 1998).

Abb.: Tomàs Saraceno: Airport-city / Cloud-Cites, installation view, New York 2021, im Internet.

10/16

(DE EN)

“[Hegel] heeft … in de van hel doordesemde generaties die bewondering voor de ‘macht van de geschiedenis’ gekweekt die vrijwel steeds in onverholen bewondering voor het succes omslaat en tot afgodendienst van het feitelijke leidt: een dienst waarvoor men tegenwoordig algemeen de zeer mythologische en bovendien goed-Duitse wending ‘recht doen aan de feiten‘ heeft geïntroduceerd.

Maar wie eenmaal geleerd heeft voor de ‘macht der geschiedenis‘ de rug te krommen en het hoofd te buigen, knikt ten slotte mechanisch als een Chinees zijn ‘ja’ tegen elke macht, of dit nu een regering is of een publieke opinie of een numerieke meerderheid, en beweegt zijn ledematen precies in de maat waarin de een of andere ‘macht’ aan de draad trekt.”

“Vorm in uzelf een beeld dat aan de toekomst zal beantwoorden, en vergeet het bijgeloof dat u epigonen bent. U hebt genoeg uit te denken en uit te vinden, al peinzend over dat toekomstige leven; maar wend u niet tot de geschiedenis om u het ‘hoe?’, het ‘waarmee?’ te laten zien.”

Friedrich Nietzsche: Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie. (1874) In: ders.: Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen. München Goldmann 1992, S.127,115 – hier niederländische Übersetzung von Thomas Graftdijk, herzien door Paul Beers [bei Google-Books].